@WABC. my sense of humor is such that I am wondering if the hiatus will be longer than my days. I am old enough that my wife and I spent 3 years sailing the sea of Cortez and saving money because double digit interest rates on our savings more than covered beer, food and insurance.

Nice coincidence. I remember San Felipe very fondly. Amazing tides, like the Bay of Fundy.

Anyone adding significant new money into US equities these days?

You have to be kidding. :) Lowest allocation to equities I can ever remember (+ - 25%).
I bought a little MSGS stock several weeks ago and added it to my 14%+ “hedged” position. Idea was to compensate for the inclusion of SPDN - which shorts the S&P. The only stock I own. (Mentioned the buy in an off -topic thread Sept. 3). It’s been fun to watch as I’m an NBA fan. And it’s doing very well lately. Just got a “push” from Barron’s over the weekend.

@msf Thanks for all of that information, most appreciated. I see how muck work you put into it.
I'll clarify the last part first. The anxiety would emanate from wondering the entire time, if I was going to live long enough to break even. lol From wondering if I chose poorly. Not a big issue either way though. More of an afterthought.
Definitely not worried about income or our retirement funds lasting. More about making a "best" choice.
I am now a bit confused about the spousal benefit. If I am reading it correctly (probably not), my spouse still gets more than her current benefit (claimed at 65 and much lower earnings), when I claim at FRA and she switches to spousal benefits, just not as much as it might've been had she also waited until FRA. We are about the same age. Is that correct interpretation?
And the spousal benefit is half of my PIA, regardless of when I claim. Though she cannot switch to spousal, until I start my benefits? In layman's terms her spousal benefit is already fixed/determind before I decide to claim?
Also, it appears that the SSA is using the terms "FRA" and "normal retirement" interchangeably?
I have been vacillating on taking SS at FRA. You have given me something to consider.
@sfnative. A lengthy but valuable read. Thanks.
Based on what has happened thus far, the specter of cut SS benefits is not unrealistic. So, another unknown variable. And that suggests one should take the money and run.

Jonathan Clements (62) passed away. RIP.
https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/jonathan-clements-longtime-wsj-columnist-dies-at-62-8753c01d

"Back to my initial question - Do you think the stampede into IG corporates (and shrinking premium)
is a sign of investor appetite for risk?"
Not neccessarily.
It may just indicate that investors prefer IG corporates instead of Treasuries despite reduced risk premiums.
The ICE BofA BBB US Corporate Index Option-Adjusted Spread was only 0.93 on 09/19/2025.
This is the smallest spread since November 1997.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLC0A4CBBB
The ICE BofA Single-A US Corporate Index Option-Adjusted Spread was only 0.61 on 09/19/2025.
This is the smallest spread since September 1997.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLC0A3CA
The ICE BofA AA US Corporate Index Option-Adjusted Spread was only 0.41 on 09/19/2025.
This is the smallest spread since September 1997.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLC0A2CAA

The ages you posted suggest that you'd come out better waiting.
The breakeven point (assuming one gets the same after tax returns with investing as with inflation adjusted, state-exempt SS) is around 81, give or take, depending on which two ages are being compared. From Britanica:

Since you expect to live at least to the breakeven point, and possibly several years longer, waiting seems like a heads (long life) you win, tails (short end of expectations) you break even choice.
Having a larger income stream going forward (which can be viewed as either a bond or a cash investment) allows you to allocate more in your taxable account to equities. Thus returns are improved (over the 60/40 used in the Kitces piece); tax efficiency is also improved. The "bonds" (SS income stream) is state-exempt; another bonus.
The key seems to be the last sentence: "waiting would make me anxious, I think."
I don't dismiss such concerns. There's a reason why "Spock" was used as the prototype for "Case 2" in the cited piece. But one can still ask: anxious about what?
It sounds like you won't need the cash flow (you'll be investing it). If you die at, say, age 75, you leave a bit less cash to wife. OTOH, wife gets a larger survivor benefit income stream to partially compensate. And if wife outlives you by several years, with that greater cash stream she could actually come out better. This is why, for some couples, it is suggested that the lower earner claim at 62 and the higher earner wait until 70. Then the augmented SS income stream survives until both partners are deceased.

And the wife, who took her benefits at 65, gets a bigger (spousal) benefit at the same time
FRA = full retirement age, PIA = primary insurance amount
Wife spousal benefit (if less than her own benefit) =
1/2 (or less, if taken before her FRA) x your PIA (independent of when you take benefits).
Spousal benefit is reduced (below 1/2 of PIA) if spouse (here, wife) starts taking benefit before their FRA. But when you take doesn't matter.

If you claim your spousal benefit at FRA, you will receive ½ of your spouse’s PIA regardless of when your spouse claims. I.e. a higher earning spouse claiming his/her reduced benefit at age 62 will not affect a spousal benefit claimed at FRA. A higher earning spouse claiming early would, however, affect Survivor benefits, but that is a topic for a future blog.

https://counterweightpw.com/insights/should-my-spouse-claim-early-understanding-social-security-spousal-benefits

The spousal benefit can be as much as half of the worker's "primary insurance amount," depending on the spouse's age at retirement. If the spouse begins receiving benefits before "normal (or full) retirement age," the spouse will receive a reduced benefit.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/spouse.html
That links to this SSA definition of PIA (emphasis added):

The "primary insurance amount" (PIA) is the benefit (before rounding down to next lower whole dollar) a person would receive if he/she elects to begin receiving retirement benefits at his/her normal retirement age. At this age, the benefit is neither reduced for early retirement nor increased for delayed retirement.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/piaformula.html
Finally, please don't rely on AI for help. Here's what Google's AI said (searching for spousal benefit half PIA early retirement):

Your Claiming Age: The spousal benefit calculation uses your PIA at your FRA, not the actual amount you are currently collecting. If you claim your own benefit early (before your FRA), this will result in a lower PIA, and thus a lower maximum spousal benefit.

The first sentence appears correct - your spouse's benefit depends on your PIA (which is calculated as if at FRA). The second sentence is not - if you claim early, that reduces your benefit but not your PIA, which is defined as what your benefit would be at FRA. Thus it does not result in a lower maximum spousal benefit.

My situation seems simple. FRA is 66 and 10 months. My employer will be in no need of my services at almost precisely that time. I also subscribe to the notion that by taking SS, one can let investments grow, as Crash suggested. And the wife, who took her benefits at 65, gets a bigger (spousal) benefit at the same time. My state does not tax retirement benefits, either. And I will be retiring mid-year, so less earned income.
Life expectancy is an unknown. Dad lived to be 96. Mom lived to 81. I think my situation may be closer to my mother's. Split the difference and it would be around 88.
I could delay benefits and use taxable funds, paying lower LTCG. Or make bigger Roth conversions during those years. Splitting it in the middle ( 62 - 70) seems like a decent choice. Maybe not the optimal choice. But waiting would make me anxious, I think.

[snip]
From Friday’s WSJ: ”In another sign this week’s rate cut lifted investor confidence and appetite for risk,
the premium that investors demand to hold investment-grade-rated companies’ bonds
instead of Treasurys hit its lowest level since 1998.”
In an opinion piece today (WSJ) one observer cites the above as a sign of investor euphoria.
Makes a certain degree of sense to me.
However, if that money going into IG corporates is money that might otherwise go into stocks,
I’m not so sure. Could be a sign of caution.

U.S. Fund Flows In August
"In August, taxable-bond funds experienced their largest monthly inflow since April 2021."
"Multisector bond funds brought in their largest monthly inflow on record in August.
Pimco Income’s nearly $200 billion of assets make up nearly half of the category’s net assets
and often drive monthly flows for the category."
"Investors have pulled nearly $87 billion out of US equity funds over the past four months
as investors retreat from growth strategies, even as stock markets hit record highs.
In August, 98% of the $11 billion in monthly net outflows came from growth funds,
while in the past year, the retreat was even more pronounced."
"As gold prices soared to record heights, investors continued to crowd into commodities-focused funds
in August. These funds, which invest mostly in precious metals, gathered more than $6 billion in the month,
pushing 2025’s haul to $31 billion."
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/us-fund-flows-august-bond-funds-stay-hot-while-stock-funds-do-not

Do you mean your FRA was 66+ (born between 1955 and 1959 inclusive) or actually 67 (born in 1960 or later)? Those born after 1959 haven't yet reached FRA, so at least one of us is a bit confused.
As yogi's chart above shows, a plurality of people take SS as soon as they are able to (age 62). They may be concerned about losing to the government by dying early, or they may be in need of cash flow.
There's a much smaller spike at age 70. Those people hope/expect to win their bet with the government that they will have a long life. And they are not strapped for cash before then.
The middle spike, not quite as large as the number of people taking benefits as soon as they are eligible, is at FRA (age 66). People might chose that age for a few reasons:
- This maximizes their spousal benefit. If their spouse gets the higher SS payments and dies first, they get that larger income stream. Except that this amount is reduced if they started SS before FRA. So waiting until FRA (but not later) has a benefit.
- This avoids a temporary reduction in SS benefits if they are still working and draw SS before FRA. The reduction is only temporary because the full amount of the reduction is added back (inflation adjusted) to their benefits once they reach FRA. Still, this is a temporary reduction in total cash flow ($1 reduction in SS for every $2 in earnings).
- FRA is perceived as the proper age to start drawing SS. That's when "full" benefits begin. Though what "full" means when there's a sliding scale between ages 62 and 70 is somewhat fuzzy.
ISTM that the reasons for taking benefits at age 62 or age 70 are more compelling than taking benefits at FRA, though selecting FRA does confer some benefits also. As others have said, each person's situation is different.

$8.7785 (as of Sept 19) for RSIIX. Interesting. Thanks.
I've not seen that before and CrossingBridge only quotes its fund price to the penny. It looks like Schwab shows four decimal places for other CrossingBridge funds as well, e.g. CBLDX.
I wonder if you'd get a slightly different number of shares if you purchased at, say, Fidelity (quoted to two decimal places) and at Schwab. Would $877.85 get you exactly 100 shares at Schwab but only 99.983 shares at Fidelity (@$8.78/share)?
Here are the Schwab pages for RSIIX and CBLDX:
https://www.schwab.com/research/mutual-funds/quotes/summary/rsiix
https://www.schwab.com/research/mutual-funds/quotes/summary/cbldx

So Gretchen Morgenson wound up at NBC. For many years she was a muckraking business reporter at the NYTimes. Mostly excellent, though IMHO she occasionally latched onto something so much that she went over the top. There's some of that here.
TIAA has been under pressure for a couple of decades to retain assets and improve profits. Like many employer plan providers, it began offering retirement plan advice once the Dept of Labor opened up the floodgates in 2006.
Of course TIAA's advisors steer participants into more expensive plans. An irony in the report is that it holds Vanguard out as a model of what should be done, when Vanguard just settled with the SEC for failing to "disclose to clients that its advisors had financial incentives to funnel them into certain managed accounts."
There are no white hats in this industry.
I largely agree with yogi that the article exhibits poor understanding of fixed annuity fees. But Morgenson knows better and does not lack for understanding. Her complaint here is over the top. One does not ask a bank what its expense ratios are on its CDs; the profits are built into the rates it offers. Likewise, one does not ask an insurance company what its expense ratios are on its fixed annuities.
Why not ask Vanguard what the "expense ratios" are of the underlying bonds in its MMF portfolios? Just how much does the Treasury make on its T-bills?
To nitpick, it looks like PTTRX (the only Pimco offering) and RERGX (the only American Funds offering) are only in RI's 457 plan, not the 401(a) plan that's the subject of the article.
https://www.tiaa.org/public/tcm/ri/view-all-investments

This was posted in Facebook TIAA Group and here was my reply:
"My take - 2 links are at the end.
1. Plan fees are $32/yr plus fund ER (if applicable).
2. TIAA Traditional is RCP (flexible). There is no ER as it's run directly from TIAA General Account. RCP rates are published monthly (& here too) & seem good. The guessed ERs in the NBC article are speculations & show poor understanding.
3. Also available are TIAA Stable Value (with lower rates) & Vanguard money-market fund.
4. TDFs available are TIAA RetirePlus Select (ER 3 bps only) & Vanguard TDFs.
5. Other funds available are from American Funds, Pimco, State Street, Vanguard.
6. As for restrictions on in-service withdrawals & loans, neither is available, but that is the decision of Rhode Island. I am surprised that loans aren't allowed. But why blame TIAA? Complain to Rhode Island HR.
IMO, it's a GOOD plan & I hope that TIAA responds to the shoddy NBC piece. If not, you are at the right place to get right information (-:)"
NBC https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rhode-island-sheriffs-retirement-account-woes-bring-scrutiny-state-run-rcna229290
TIAA Rhode Island DC Plan https://www.tiaa.org/public/tcm/ri/retirement-benefits/plan-405868
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/918/tiaa-rhode-island-plan

Yea, I've had share price scare me away many times even if it makes no sense. It is just the feel. It feels like getting 10 t-shirts for $100 each instead of 200 t-shirts at $5 each (which "feels" like a fuller closet). Of course, the analogy is very bad without the feels like part since growth is harder in a full closet but not in a high share cost fund (or rather shouldn't be). Should it?

Same. I always feel better buying 'cheaper' shares of stocks....it's a stupid human psychology thing.

20/20 hindsight: Someone who claimed benefits at 62 eight years ago and remained invested in the S&P500 through thick and thin (2018, 2020, 2022, etc.) will likely do a whole lot better than a similarly aged person who waited until this month to start receiving benefits. Probably pushed the "breakeven point" way past age 89. The next seven years? Not so sure . . . .

Can SEQUX be far behind? It's up to 215~
Sequoia a whole 'nuther beast. While all OEFs can redeem in kind, Sequoia actually does this. As they wrote to the WSJ in 2016:

For many years Sequoia Fund has clearly disclosed that we can and do pay large redemptions with securities rather than cash ...
We redeem with shares to benefit our continuing shareholders, who might otherwise pay capital-gains taxes on the sale of appreciated stock that might be required for redemptions. By redeeming in kind, our 20,000 continuing Sequoia shareholders will pay lower capital-gains taxes in the future. Our goal is always to be tax-efficient and to do what is right for continuing shareholders. For a departing shareholder, there is no tax or other consequence to receiving stock instead of cash, aside from the minor inconvenience of having to sell a security upon receipt. We take care to always deliver stocks that trade in sufficient volume so that the exiting shareholder can sell them immediately without depressing the market for a particular security.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sequoias-redemption-with-securities-is-tax-efficient-1460583731

I don't think they do it that way all the time anymore. :-D
Maybe it will become an issue for my heirs, but I doubt it.

Can SEQUX be far behind? It's up to 215~
Sequoia a whole 'nuther beast. While all OEFs can redeem in kind, Sequoia actually does this. As they wrote to the WSJ in 2016:

For many years Sequoia Fund has clearly disclosed that we can and do pay large redemptions with securities rather than cash ...
We redeem with shares to benefit our continuing shareholders, who might otherwise pay capital-gains taxes on the sale of appreciated stock that might be required for redemptions. By redeeming in kind, our 20,000 continuing Sequoia shareholders will pay lower capital-gains taxes in the future. Our goal is always to be tax-efficient and to do what is right for continuing shareholders. For a departing shareholder, there is no tax or other consequence to receiving stock instead of cash, aside from the minor inconvenience of having to sell a security upon receipt. We take care to always deliver stocks that trade in sufficient volume so that the exiting shareholder can sell them immediately without depressing the market for a particular security.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sequoias-redemption-with-securities-is-tax-efficient-1460583731

Yea, I've had share price scare me away many times even if it makes no sense. It is just the feel. It feels like getting 10 t-shirts for $100 each instead of 200 t-shirts at $5 each (which "feels" like a fuller closet). Of course, the analogy is very bad without the feels like part since growth is harder in a full closet but not in a high share cost fund (or rather shouldn't be). Should it?

Some VAs display prices with 4 decimals
Some VAs (e.g. TIAA) even display prices with six decimals:

Fund Name					Current		30		60		90		120
Unit		Days		Days		Days		Days
Value		Ago	 	Ago		Ago		Ago
Calamos Growth & Income  			 64.640017  	 61.913583  	 61.040953  	58.013614  	55.768224  
ClearBridge Variable Growth Portfolio-Class 1    72.854510  	 69.070460  	 69.437077  	66.239111  	63.457397  
Clearbridge Variable Small Cap Growth Portfolio  75.521712  	 72.637799  	 69.259806  	67.165795  	63.638324  
Columbia Variable Portfolio - Acorn Fund	138.460819  	134.783557  	130.140467  	125.233172  	120.413181  
[etc.]
Current values as of 09/19/2025
Note: Unit values are shown to 6 decimal places.

Exchange trades can be executed in hundredths of a penny. I recently bought an ETF at a price of $XX.XX46. That's the way it displays on all the paper communications (confirmations and statements) though online typically only pennies (2 decimal places) are displayed.
But VAs and ETFs (and stocks) are not relevant here. The D&C funds are OEFs.
NAVs of OEFs are almost rounded to two decimal places. That's what makes large share prices slightly problematic, and why reducing the NAV reduces rounding errors on transactions.
There is one exception that I know of to the two decimal place reporting of OEF NAVs. Floating rate MMFs report NAVs to four decimal places. See, e.g. POIXX
https://www.federatedhermes.com/us/products/mutual-funds/instl-prime-obligations/is.do

The expanded NAV (e.g., $1.0000) must be used for transaction processing and display purposes,

https://www.ici.org/ops_mmf_reform/fourdecimal
TSP also quotes to four decimal places, but are those OEFs?

Can SEQUX be far behind? It's up to 215~. SMH is up to 315.~
I have been watching DODGX. At a certain point I can see where the share price becomes daunting for new buyers. Just 8.9928 shares for forking across the minimum doesn't seem fun to me.
I think it's interesting that they wanted the share prices to look similar to their newer funds. Perhaps it will make for more eye-pleasing reports.